Welcome! I am a Crohn's colitis survivor, fighter and persistant proactive patient that will not stop the search.. 4 THE CURE! Meanwhile, I will utilize this blog to educate, support and provide up to date, valuable information about Crohn's Disease, IBD, IBS and many other chronic conditions.

Monday, November 12, 2012

Here is a MUST READ that I received in my e-mail. This was originally published several years ago however, is extremely relevant today! It just goes to show us that the distorted reports against natural supplements/vitamins has persisted year after year, right up to 2012. Really, this information is exactly inline with the things that I believe and have mentioned to people at one time or another, especially regarding the absolute fact that the pharmaceutical industry and the current healthcare system is CORRUPT! The reason I use the word "corrupt" is because the focus on making drugs by most pharm companies (most...not all drug companies. There's some companies that are not consumed with greed and have a goal of getting people healthier.. They are few, but exist) is not to cure you, but to manage symptoms. Do you realize how much money would be lost if they cured illnesses? Exactly...BILLIONS!It's vital to know what's going on within these industries.... 1) if you take any prescribed medication. (It's your responsibility to do your part before committing to treatment) 2) if a friend or family member is prescribed medication. 3) if you care at all about your life & are caught up in a vicious cycle of getting better then ill (neither one of them last very long). Basically, if you are not getting better & you always feel "off" and not quite yourself. You're in a standstill. 4) if you know there's something not right within the medical industry, but you can't really pinpoint exactly what it is. You are aware that there are major flaws and want to learn more and educate yourself.5)If you want to blow the whistle on this sad situation and want to be a voice to spread truth.6) If you are driven and feel a strong conviction to EXPOSE what's going on in our healthcare system today and want to see a positive change.7) If you want to have the knowledge about what's happening in our nation and around the world regarding an area that WILL one day impact your life (everyone will be effected by the condition of these industries at one point in your lifetime. Health fails us... it's inevitable that as we age things in our body breakdown, need special attention & care, require repair. Newsletter from Jini Patel Thompson. Her website info is at the end of this article. Visit her site for more articles.

HOW PHARMACEUTICALS USE "EXPERTS" TO DISCREDIT NATURAL MEDICINE

You may have noticed this already: Whenever a natural supplement or herbal
medicine becomes well-known and widely used, with lots of evidence piling
up for its efficacy - there will then be a slew of media releases in newspapers,
magazines, and tv news reports, discrediting that natural medicine. Or,
the FDA will ban the substance based on trumped-up charges of user damage.
This is exactly what happened with one of the best wound healers I've ever
found called Comfrey. The FDA found one person who they claimed died of
Comfrey use (the person had long-term, extensive medical problems, was
very sick already and then began drinking ridiculous amounts of Comfrey
tea) and based on that one incidence, they banned Comfrey use. Of course,
no mention or comparison to the 7000 people who die
EVERY YEAR
in the US from Aspirin use! Then they set upon other bestsellers like
Ma Huang (ephedra), St. John's Wort, and Vitamin E, the list goes on and
on.

Well recently I received this article from the Alliance for Natural Health
(a European organization) that does an excellent job of detailing exactly
HOW
pharmaceutical-backed interests use "
scientific
"
experts" to compile evidence against natural remedies.

You need to know this information to help you understand how the medical
and pharmaceutical industries are very clearly focused on keeping you on
your drugs. It's all about money. They don't want anyone getting better,
because then they lose massive amounts of money. Read on so you can educate
yourself and become savvy about this insidious battle for your healthcare
dollars...

On 24 March 2006, The British Medical Journal' published a meta-analysis
(a study of other studies) on omega-3 fatty acids [1] that prompted headlines
around the world to the effect that "fish oils don't work". This is not
the first time a meta-analysis has triggered headlines that discredit natural
health supplements.

In November 2004, Dr Edgar Miller and colleagues published electronically
in the Annals of Internal Medicine a meta-analysis [2] that provided headlines
as bizarre as "High dose vitamin E death warning" (this headline was run
by none other than the BBC on 11 November 2004). The meta-analysis appeared
to be pitched to tarnish the reputation of vitamin E, a nutrient in which
many are known to be deficient. Among many of its problems, the study failed
to show how healthy people would respond to supplemental intakes of vitamin
E and it only included studies on synthetic vitamin E (dl-alpha-tocopherol).
It therefore omitted any consideration of the effects of the seven other
related compounds that make-up full spectrum, natural vitamin E, as found
in vegetable oils. Interestingly, the body's absorption of the most important
dietary form (gamma-tocopherol) is hindered by high doses of synthetic
vitamin E, and this could have explained the negative results found by
Miller et al.

The overall conclusion that high-dose vitamin E causes increased mortality
could also have been a statistical artefact, with no biological relevance.
Since the study assessed all-cause mortality, and not just cardiovascular
mortality, other factors could easily have contributed to the greater death
rate in the higher dose vitamin E group found when trials were pooled.
It should be noted that the increased death rate was marginal; just 63
additional deaths per 10,000 persons, compared with the control group.
Given that the confidence interval ranged from 6 to 119, this increased
death rate cannot be said to be statistically significant.

Prior to this meta-analysis on vitamin E, market research data from Frost
& Sullivan showed that vitamin E was the second most consumed single
vitamin supplement, after vitamin C, in Europe. High-dose Vitamin E could
have easily been perceived by Big Pharma as a threat to its huge cardiovascular
drug market, comprised of statins, beta-blockers and ACE-inhibitors. In
fact, Big Pharma had demonstrated such a strong interest in vitamins that
it established an illegal cartel to control the markets and prices of a
range of key vitamins, including vitamin E. Fortunately for the consumer,
the conspiracy was eventually exposed and pharma companies like BASF and
Hoffman-La Roche, as well as some of their top executives, got busted.
Fines imposed by the US Justice Department in the US (May 1999) and, separately,
by the European Commission (November 2001), which amounted to hundreds
of millions of dollars in the US and similar amounts in Europe, are still
among the largest ever imposed following an anti-trust investigation. Undeterred
by this prosecution, Big Pharma continued its campaign against supplements,
with the meta-analysis on vitamin E appearing in the peer-reviewed journal
Annals of Internal Medicine just three years later.

A year earlier, in June 2003, another meta-analysis appeared. This one
was published in the prestigious medical journal, the Lancet, by Dr Marc
Penn and colleagues from the Cleveland Clinic [3]. These authors asserted
that beta-carotene, vitamin A and other antioxidant vitamins such as vitamin
E, were harmful. These authors re-iterated yet again negative results from
a very small clutch of studies on synthetic vitamins like synthetic beta-carotene
and vitamin E, which were once more administered to diseased or high risk
subjects, and often for inadequate periods of time.

Following the publication of the meta-analysis, the lead author was quoted
in the media saying that people should stop taking supplements containing
vitamins A, beta-carotene and E. These conclusions, some of which were
carried over into the vitamin E meta-analysis the following year, are profound
misinterpretations of the existing evidence base, and most certainly cannot
be applied to the role of these vitamins in reducing risks of chronic diseases
such as cancer and cardiovascular disease in healthy people. Nor can these
conclusions be applied to supplements containing natural forms of these
vitamins.

Back to the omega-3 meta-analysis of 2006

Last month's attack on fish oils prompted by the meta-analysis by Dr Lee
Hooper and his colleagues, as published in the BMJ, must surely be seen
in the same light as the two meta-analyses discussed above. Put bluntly,
the meta-analysis appears to be, once more, a vehicle to generate negative
headlines. In fairness, even the authors have now conceded that they were
"misquoted in much of the press." [4]

The scientific evidence for long chain omega-3 benefits on lowering triglycerides
and other risk factors in heart disease, as well as clear, beneficial immune
system modulation and behavioural effects, have been regarded by scientists,
doctors and health authorities around the world as conclusive. This evidence
has formed the basis of recommendations to consume oily fish or fish oil
supplements by many governments. Where governments have stipulated a limit
on the maximum amount to be consumed, such as no more than three portions
of oily fish weekly, this has served mainly as a means to limit intake
of heavy metals like mercury, or other contaminants such as dioxins or
PCBs common in most wild fish [5]. Peculiarly, governments have appeared
shy of recommending high-quality fish oil supplements which are often guaranteed
as being free of any significant levels of these contaminants. This is
particularly relevant given that specific batches of several low cost,
mass market fish oil product lines have recently had to be withdrawn from
the UK market owing to dioxin contamination (e.g. several Seven Seas [owned
by pharma giant Merck] fish oil product batches were withdrawn on 14th
March 2006, and on 11th March 2006 high street pharmacy chain Boots withdrew
two batches of its own brand fish oil product).

In closely scrutinising Hooper et al''s paper, one thing becomes apparent:
the findings are not nearly as damning as those suggested by the negative
headlines on omega-3 fats that rebounded around the world for over a week.
In fact, to the contrary; when it comes to the studies with fish oils only,
the news appears just as rosy as we had all thought.

Ten out of 12 randomised control trials considered in the meta-analysis
that assessed these oils in relation to total mortality point to positive
findings. The same can be said for all three cohort studies considered
by the meta-analysis authors. That's thirteen out of fifteen studies showing
favourable results for higher intakes of omega-3 fats. The remaining two
studies have been presented as showing very slightly negative findings,
but in both cases the studies deal with existing disease states, either
angina or coronary artery bypass grafts. The negative effects, in both
cases, are so small that they could be regarded as having little or no
biological relevance (in one study there was half a percent greater mortality
in the treatment compared with control, while in the other there was a
little over a 2% difference). The meta-analysis authors themselves considered
both studies as being of medium to high risk of bias, which might in itself
explain or at least contribute to such variations.

So, while the world was assaulted with headlines such as "The benefits
of fish and linseed oils as elixir of life are another health myth" (this
example being courtesy of The Times newspaper), we could have just as easily,
and much more correctly, read headlines along the lines of: "New meta-analysis
reinforces the health benefits of fish oils." But perhaps fewer newspapers
would have sold on 24 and 25 March 2006.

Smearing the data with margarine

Even when Hooper and co-workers included studies with plant-derived, short
chain omega-3 fats, such as those found in certain vegetable oils (e.g.
flax) including margarines, the overall trend still pointed to reduced
mortality for those consuming higher intake levels of all forms of omega-3.

The study that was presented as having the most pronounced apparent negative
effect was one published in 2002 by Groningen University's Dr Wanda Bemelmans
and colleagues [6]. The study, known as the
MARGARIN
trial, investigated the effect on heart disease risk of a Unilever margarine
enriched with alpha-linolenic acid (ALA), an important short-chain omega-3
found to be rich in Mediterranean diets, well known for their health promoting
properties. The study also aimed to assess the effect of group education
on the benefits associated with consuming a typical Mediterranean diet.
Importantly, the subjects in the study all had multiple cardiovascular
risk factors; nearly half were smokers and took anti-hypertensive drugs,
while over 40% had family histories of cardiovascular risk.

Bemelmans and colleagues' own findings, in contrast to their interpretation
of these findings in the Hooper et al meta-analysis, are overwhelmingly
positive. They demonstrate clearly the beneficial effects of ALA-enriched
margarine on reducing heart disease risk. The study also shows that group
education led to healthier diets, with increased consumption of fish, and
consequently lower heart disease risk factors. These findings are actually
fully in line with another major study, the Lyons Diet Heart Study, published
in 1994 in the Lancet, which actually provided the inspiration for Bemelmans
and colleagues'
MARGARIN
trial.

So, how was this study distorted to give the impression that omega-3 fats
might be bad for you? This is down to the very small number of deaths recorded,
which could just as easily be a function of chance rather than any treatment
effect. The study included only four deaths out of 266 subjects in total.
The omega-3 meta-analysis authors managed to blacken this study because
3 out of 4 of these deaths (again from all-causes, not just cardiovascular
disease) occurred in the high ALA, treatment group, while only one was
in the low ALA, control group. This small number of deaths could easily
have been a function of random, 'statistical clustering', particularly
given that risk factors appeared lower in the high ALA treatment group.

Dr Bemelmans has actually gone on public record since the release of Hooper
et al''s meta-analysis questioning the way in which her study has been
used, and how her and her co-authors' positive findings have been used
to demonstrate negative findings in the meta-analysis.

Just as importantly, since the omega-3 sources are vegetable oils in margarine,
it is not surprising that the benefits are perhaps less pronounced given
the inefficient and limited conversion by the human body of plant-derived
omega-3s to key long chain fatty acids like eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA)
and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) that are abundant in fish oils. Additionally,
harmful trans fats in margarine could have been an additional confounding
factor.

Cutting to the chase

Looking at all of the data in the omega-3 meta-analysis, the only area
where it is possible to interpret a tendency towards very slightly negative
effects, is in the case of randomised control trials (but not cohort studies)
looking at the effects of omega-3 fats on cancer and stroke. However, these
results could just as easily be the result of bias or confounding factors,
inadequate periods of supplementation, or even the effects of contaminants
in fish or fish oil capsules.

For the BMJ''s own view on the subject, it is worth referring to the Editorial
published on 24 March which focuses on Hooper et al's meta-analysis. Contrary
to the thrust of the meta-analysis itself, and the related media, the Editorial
takes a rather positive line on omega-3s, and demonstrates concern over
dwindling supplies of marine-derived omega-3s.

Citing directly from the Editorial:
"For the general public some omega 3 fat is good for health..... Adequate
intake of omega 3 fats is particularly important for women of childbearing
age...... We are faced with a paradox. Health recommendations advise increased
consumption of oily fish and fish oils, within limits, on the grounds that
intake is generally low. However, industrial fishing has depleted the world's
fish stocks by some 90% since 1950, and rising fish prices reduce affordability
particularly for people with low incomes. Global production trends suggest
that, although fish farming is expanding rapidly, we probably do not have
a sustainable supply of long chain omega 3 fats."

Additionally, there are now many Rapid Responses published in the BMJ
which reinforce problems with the authors' conclusions. These can be found
at: ?
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/332/7544/752.

Let you be the judge. I don't believe many people who read the full Hooper
et al meta-analysis, as well as the BMJ editorial and Rapid Responses,
would stop taking fish oil supplements. The problem is that only a tiny
proportion of the population will do this. Many more will succumb to the
negative headlines triggered by the meta-analysis and, contrary to the
vast weight of evidence, they now run the risk of going against government
advice to increase consumption of oily fish or fish oil supplements at
recommended doses.

Those very few who interrogate the evidence considered by Hooper and colleagues
might actually decide to alter their sources of omega-3 fats, shifting
in the direction of high quality fish oil supplements and away from vegetarian
sources of omega-3 and even oily fish, which runs the risk of contamination.
This way, they can be guaranteed specific amounts of long-chain EPA and
DHA, as well as being confident they are consuming products that are certified
as free from contaminants.

So, despite the headlines, there is no new evidence clouding the efficacy
of fish oils or long chain essential fatty acids. In fact, if the meta-analysis
had included other health benefits such as immune system function, cognitive
and behavioural function and joint health, the case for marine-derived
omega-3s would have looked even stronger. So strong, in fact, one wonders
if the media couldn't be sued by fish oil supplement manufacturers for
damages. But things are rarely this simple.

We are left wondering about those negative headlines. Could there have
been a motive for the negative spin?

Pharma fish oils

Just as we've seen Big Pharma control vitamin and mineral markets globally,
both legally and illegally, is it not possible that this most recent skewed
meta-analysis is part of a plan to discredit fish oils consumed increasingly
by the masses?

When you peruse the competing interests declared in the BMJ paper, the
only possible link given is that speaker fees have been paid to one of
the authors by a company, Solvay, that markets a product called Omacor.
Solvay is not a small marketing outfit. It is part of an international
chemical and pharmaceutical group, headquartered in Brussels, which employs
some 33,000 people across 50 countries. Omacor also happens to be the first
prescription-only fish oil. As a licensed medicine, unlike the much more
common fish oil food or dietary supplements, it can brandish extensive
health and medicinal claims. Omacor, manufactured by Pronova Biocare in
Norway (a private, limited company owned by Ferd Private Equity Fund),
is prescribed primarily for reducing triglycerides (a major heart disease
risk factor) and is positioned firmly as a stable mate with cholesterol-reducing
statin drugs. In other words, the evidence for taking high quality fish
oils is so convincing, drugs companies perhaps now want a slice of the
action.

And the timing for the release of the meta-analysis does appear most fortuitous.
In November 2004, Omacor was approved as a drug by the US Food & Drug
Administration. In September 2005, Solvay Pharmaceuticals and Pronova Biocare
signed a licensing agreement for exclusive distribution rights for distribution
into India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Vietnam, Singapore, Malaysia,
China, Hong Kong and New Zealand.

Furthermore, on 1 December 2005, EPAX Sales and Production de-merged from
Pronova Biocare to enable Pronova to focus exclusively on the production
of prescription-only Omacor. EPAX, also based in Norway, will continue
to produce concentrated omega-3 oils for the 'poor-cousin', dietary supplement
industry.

Is the way actually being paved to encourage patients to elect for the
prescription-only fish oil version, resplendent with all the health claims
allowed under a drugs regime and banned in the food or dietary supplement
sector? Even if these processes are only coincidental, and we currently
have no direct evidence to suggest otherwise, the effect is the same.
The crying shame from a public health and disease prevention perspective,
is that some of the most robust evidence for taking fish oils relates to
their early, protective effects against heart disease. And that's why the
free availability of high quality fish oil supplements is so important;
people only take drugs when they become sick.

So now, those people - and there may be many - who have been unfairly
frightened away from fish oil supplements might believe that they need
to wait until they're sick in later life before their trusted doctors can
prescribe the fish oil supplements they should have been consuming all
along.

For further information, please contact:
Alliance for Natural Health?The Atrium, Dorking,?Surrey RH4
1XA, United Kingdom?Tel: +44 (0)1252 371 275? Email:
info@anhcampaign.org
This article may be copied, downloaded, printed and distributed freely
as long as it is not modified in any way.
Web:
www.anhcampaign.org

You are welcome to publish this newsletter, or send it on to whomever
you wish,
so long as you include this copyright notice:
Copyright 2011 Jini Patel Thompson
Jini is the author of numerous books on natural healing
methods for IBS, Crohn's, diverticulitis and colitis.
http://www.listen2yourgut.com

2 comments:

Thanx for ur post and giving us a hugefull information, i also read somewhere The omega-3 fatty acids found in Fish Oil possesses many health benefits.and recomended by many Health Autorities as a part of Balanced Diet. Fish Oil contains Omega-3 Fatty Acids, specifically Docosahexaenoic Acid (DHA) and Eicosapentaenoic Acid (EPA). One of the Health Benefits linked to Fish Oil is a low risk of Heart Attack. very healpfull for Blood Circulations.

thank you for commenting. Omega 3 fatty acids are very beneficial. Like you said they are great for heart health, promoting healthy circulation and helps with reducing inflammation in the body too. I'm sure there's more health benefits, but that's all I know off hand. It's definitely worth supplementing if you don't consume a lot of salmon and other fish rich in Omega 3's. I wish the capsules weren't so large for the Omega 3 supplements . I've noticed they are all pretty large capsules and everytime I try to commit to taking them, I never follow thru because I dread swallowing the things. *grrrrrr*